Re: SIL OFL 1.1 plus "reserved font name" is DFSG?

On 2026-01-29, Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at the BenchNine font, because some upstream documentation
> that I'm packaging uses this font.  Unfortunately, it appears that its
> license may be non-DFSG due to this:
>
>     No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
>     Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the
>     corresponding Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the
>     primary font name as presented to the users.
>     https://fonts.google.com/specimen/BenchNine/license
>
> I understand how this is arguably important for the end-user experience
> of fonts as well as what might be called integrity of design principles
> which affect potentially affect the author's reputation.  That said, it
> feels non-DFSGish.  What do you think?

It feels explicitly DFSGish due to DFSG #4
"The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software."

> Can we clarify our position on this (somewhere) please?

I think it is already quite clear.

/Sune